Conclusions and recommendations
1. There
are clear economic arguments for resolving complaints as quickly
as possible. The earlier complaints are resolved, the cheaper
it is for everyone. (Paragraph 10)
2. Complaints systems
are always likely to be more accessible to the persistent and
articulate. This makes it all the more important that complaints
systems are clear and easy to navigate, so that they do not act
as a barrier to the less articulate or less persistent (particularly
disadvantaged groups). (Paragraph 14)
3. We recommend that
all government organisations use the widest possible definition
of complaint—that of "any expression of dissatisfaction
that needs a response, however communicated"—and treat
all such expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints. (Paragraph
17)
4. Insisting on complaints
in writing can potentially deter valid complaints and prevent
problems from being identified. People should not be disadvantaged
if they have difficulty in making a formal written complaint.
We trust that the practice of not processing complaints made by
telephone or e-mail has already been reviewed by the government
organisations concerned in the light of the requirements of the
Disability Discrimination Act. (Paragraph 18)
5. The distinction
between an appeal and a complaint is real, but apparently little
understood by the public. The requirement must be for government
organisations to define their processes clearly and to treat any
expression of dissatisfaction in the appropriate way. In some
cases, the best course of action may be to combine complaint handling
with appeal handling; where that is not possible, the distinction
must be made as clear as possible to the user, and those complaining
or appealing should be guided through the system (Paragraph 22)
6. As the internet
becomes an increasingly important means for communicating with
government departments and agencies, it is all the more important
that Directgov, the Government's online portal, should set out
complaints processes in a clear, accessible and comprehensive
manner. (Paragraph 32)
7. We agree with Sir
David Varney and the National Audit Office that the Government
should explore the scope for a common access point nationwide
for all non-emergency public services. This would provide a single
point of contact for impartial information on where to make a
complaint or seek redress. We restate our predecessor Committee's
recommendation in favour of just such a service—'Public
Services Direct'—which would offer an easy access, one-stop-shop
approach to a complex web of public services. Public Services
Direct should be both a gateway to government organisations and
services, and a source of basic advice to public service users.
It would act as the starting point for people unsure of how or
where to lodge their initial complaint, and would provide them
with the appropriate information and guidance. (Paragraph 42)
8. We do not wish
to be prescriptive about the way government organisations handle
complaints. Different organisations often establish different
procedures for valid reasons. However, we are disturbed that a
poor standard of complaint handling is raised by so many complaint
reviewers. This suggests a systemic problem with first-tier complaint
handling by government organisations. (Paragraph 48)
9. Government organisations
must keep citizens informed on progress in dealing with their
complaints, especially if delays are likely. (Paragraph 51)
10. Public service
providers should be required to provide information on the next
steps in the complaints process automatically whenever acknowledging
a complaint, in line with the processes followed by financial
service providers. (Paragraph 52)
11. We recommend that,
where practical, government organisations adopt a caseworker approach
to complaint handling so that complainants have an identifiable
person to deal with. (Paragraph 54)
12. Public services
should seek to discover what complainants hope to achieve from
making their views known. Some may look for financial compensation;
others may want no more than a sincere apology, and an explanation
of the steps being taken to ensure that mistakes are not repeated.
(Paragraph 57)
13. For the public
to have confidence in systems for complaint resolution, there
must be robust and independent processes for dealing with complaints.
We believe that for areas where large numbers of complaints are
made and upheld, the existence of independent intermediate complaint
handlers is crucial to ensuring the credibility of complaint resolution
systems in government. (Paragraph 64)
14. Although necessary
in some circumstances, the existence of multi-tiered complaint
processes does increase the complexity of the system—potentially
adding to the confusion of prospective complainants. This reinforces
our earlier point that clear information and guidance need to
be made available from a central point to assist people through
the complaints process. (Paragraph 68)
15. Regulators can
require private sector organisations to monitor complaints. Government
organisations should also be obliged to ensure that they systematically
monitor the complaints they receive in order to inform service
delivery. (Paragraph 75)
16. Different organisations
may wish to take different approaches to considering the views
of service users in general, and complaints in particular. However,
all government organisations should have an active strategy for
monitoring and learning from complaints, and central departments
should use such information to monitor the performance of their
agencies. We recommend that the management boards of all departments
and agencies with a customer-facing role should consider trends
in complaints annually as an absolute minimum. (Paragraph 80)
17. We recommend that
government organisations should use as a performance indicator
the proportion of complaints upheld by independent bodies such
as the Ombudsman's office. (Paragraph 85)
18. Complaints are
only one source of information on dissatisfaction among public
service users. Organisations should seek to gather as comprehensive
and accurate an overview as possible, and be innovative about
how they do this in whatever ways are most relevant to the services
they provide. (Paragraph 88)
19. There is clearly
a need for a centrally co-ordinated official effort to champion
good practice in complaints handling across government and the
public services. We recommend that the Cabinet Office should take
the lead within central government to produce effective guidance
on how to deal with complaints. It should take account of key
principles for handling complaints which reflect the recommendations
in this report, as well as relevant existing guidance, and be
drawn up in close consultation with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
(Paragraph 95)
20. We recommend that
all government organisations be required to publish in their annual
reports information on the number of complaints they receive,
how many are reviewed by the Ombudsman, and the number that are
upheld. (Paragraph 96)
21. Significant sums
are spent on complaint handling. Handling individual complaints
well is key to confidence in public services. But complaints,
if systematically monitored, can also be a source of valuable
information which can be used to improve these services. Ensuring
consistency and best practice in these areas requires a lead from
the centre which is currently lacking. We recommend that the Cabinet
Office actively monitor how government organisations use information
from complaints to improve administration and service delivery,
and that it encourage the spread of good practice in this area.
(Paragraph 98)
22. When citizens
complain, they want their concerns to be taken seriously and,
where necessary, matters put right. We have looked in this Report
at how the Government could improve how it deals with the complaints
it receives about its operations. Complaints systems need to be
accessible, understandable and easy for people to navigate. People
should get the help they need to access complaints systems, and
to take their complaints further if they are unhappy with how
their case has been handled. Complainants also need to have confidence
that their complaints will be dealt with in a fair and competent
manner. (Paragraph 99)
23. The onus is therefore
on the Government to ensure that it responds to complaints effectively
and appropriately. A key part of this is making sure that complaints
processes meet the requirements outlined above. Equally, however,
it is about learning from complaints received in order to improve
how government and public services operate. There needs to be
a culture that invites and values complaints for the insights
they can provide on how to make government work better. This is
a culture that all government organisations should be doing their
utmost to foster—so that they not only put things right
for the citizen, but also get things right for the future. (Paragraph
100)
| 
